Kerala Consumer Forum Orders Marriage Bureau To Refund Fee, Pay Compensation After 9-Year Wait For Match

Kerala: A consumer forum in Kerala has directed a marriage bureau to refund a client's registration fee and pay compensation after finding it guilty of deficiency in service for failing to provide a suitable marriage proposal for nearly nine years.

The Kannur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed the order in the case of Ajith K.K. v. Sreechakra Marriage Bureau. A bench comprising President Ravi Susha and Members Molykutty Mathew and Sajeesh K.P. held Sreechakra Marriage Bureau liable after a nursing college professor from Kannur complained that despite registering with the agency in 2016 and paying the prescribed fee, he never received a suitable marriage proposal.

According to the complaint, the professor registered with the bureau on November 25, 2016, after seeing its advertisement and paid a registration fee of Rs 3,000. He alleged that the bureau assured him it would arrange a prospective bride from Kasaragod but never fulfilled the promise.

The complainant said his profile remained active without any fixed validity period and that every year the bureau repeated the same assurance that a suitable match would be found the next time. In the Commission's view, the repeated assurances without any meaningful outcome reflected a failure to provide the service promised to the client.

The professor also told the Commission that the prolonged delay had taken an emotional toll on his family. He said his elderly parents had been waiting for his marriage, but his father died of cancer in October 2025 before seeing his wedding, while his mother continues to remain unwell. He alleged that despite waiting for nine years, the bureau failed to deliver on its commitment.

The complainant sought Rs 15,000 as compensation for deficiency in service.

The marriage bureau neither appeared before the Commission nor filed a written version in response to the complaint. As a result, the matter was heard ex parte. During the proceedings, the complainant examined himself as a witness and produced his registration form and payment receipt as evidence.

In its order dated June 30, the Commission observed that the opposite party had not appeared before it and had not proved its defence, and was therefore directly bound to redress the grievance caused to the complainant.

Holding the bureau guilty of deficiency in service, the Commission directed it to refund the Rs 3,000 registration fee, pay Rs 3,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs 2,000 towards litigation costs.

The Commission ordered that the amount be paid within 30 days. It further ruled that failure to comply would attract 9 percent annual interest on the refund amount from the date of the order until realisation.